5 ms·

They don't offer anything up with that last point ("bigco's selling data"). As far as I can tell it was pulled from thin air. They're understandably upset --

by aray 13y ago

They don't offer anything up with that last point ("bigco's selling data"). As far as I can tell it was pulled from thin air. They're understandably upset -- a lot of us are -- but I don't think that quite justifies making unbased accusations like that (and if it has basis I'd love to hear more).

lawnchair_larry 13y ago
No, this is not new information. Companies do get paid, a lot, to facilitate this. This was known before the leaks, but leaks confirmed it. Now there are articles all over if you search. Example: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57593273/verizon-at-t-get-most-bucks-from-feds-for-wiretaps/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57593273/verizon-at-t-ge... "In its letter to Markey, AT&T estimated that it collected $24 million in government reimbursements between 2007 and 2011. Verizon, which had the highest fees but says it doesn't charge in every case, reported a similar amount, collecting between $3 million and $5 million a year during the same period." I'm not sure how I feel about that (making the companies pay for it doesn't seem fair either), but it certainly doesn't leave us with incentives in the right places.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  $24 million over a year period paid to AT&T doesn't fit my definition of 'get paid a lot.' AT&T had profits of (approximately) $7 billion on revenue of $31 B in 2012. So these reimbursements amount to something like 0.015% of revenue, or 0.1% of profits. For a firm that size, there are much greater incentives to lobby for favorable rules on employee health benefits, spectrum allocation, or consumer relations. I mean, over that time period the CEO of AT&T earned about $100 m, so in theory he could afford to take the hit for all that fee revenue personally and still make more money in a year than most people see in a lifetime. I'm not expressing support for the NSA's activity here, I think this sort of data vacuuming is quite dangerous. But viewed in the context of actual corporate revenues, I don't think it's realistic to say the government is bribing big business here, because the amount they're paying is trivial, and thus largely reflective of the change in the actual operating cost of the corporate data centers.
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    First line should say 'over a 5 year period.' oops.
- jevinskie 13y ago
  I recall cricket was the cheapest. Can I just get a line item on my phone bill for NSA surveillance instead of paying it through my taxes? :)

by aray 13y ago

lawnchair_larry 13y ago

No, this is not new information. Companies do get paid, a lot, to facilitate this. This was known before the leaks, but leaks confirmed it. Now there are articles all over if you search. Example: http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57593273/verizon-at-t-get-most-bucks-from-feds-for-wiretaps/ http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57593273/verizon-at-t-ge... "In its letter to Markey, AT&T estimated that it collected $24 million in government reimbursements between 2007 and 2011. Verizon, which had the highest fees but says it doesn't charge in every case, reported a similar amount, collecting between $3 million and $5 million a year during the same period." I'm not sure how I feel about that (making the companies pay for it doesn't seem fair either), but it certainly doesn't leave us with incentives in the right places.

anigbrowl 13y ago
$24 million over a year period paid to AT&T doesn't fit my definition of 'get paid a lot.' AT&T had profits of (approximately) $7 billion on revenue of $31 B in 2012. So these reimbursements amount to something like 0.015% of revenue, or 0.1% of profits. For a firm that size, there are much greater incentives to lobby for favorable rules on employee health benefits, spectrum allocation, or consumer relations. I mean, over that time period the CEO of AT&T earned about $100 m, so in theory he could afford to take the hit for all that fee revenue personally and still make more money in a year than most people see in a lifetime. I'm not expressing support for the NSA's activity here, I think this sort of data vacuuming is quite dangerous. But viewed in the context of actual corporate revenues, I don't think it's realistic to say the government is bribing big business here, because the amount they're paying is trivial, and thus largely reflective of the change in the actual operating cost of the corporate data centers.
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  First line should say 'over a 5 year period.' oops.
jevinskie 13y ago
I recall cricket was the cheapest. Can I just get a line item on my phone bill for NSA surveillance instead of paying it through my taxes? :)